get to $2.40 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks, and the notion that we would be doing that and not asking anything from the wealthiest among us or from closing corporate loopholes, that does not seem like a serious plan to meet. the notion that -- a serious the notion that -- a serious plan to me saying that oil companies do not need them to have an incentive to go out and make hundreds of millions of dollars, if we had not seen the other side even budge on that, i think most democrats would say that is not a serious plan. one last point on the balanced budget amendment. i do not know what version they are going to be presenting, but some of the balanced budget amendments that have been floating up their, this cut,

cap, and balance, for example. when you look at the numbers, what you are looking at is cuts of a half trillion dollars below the right and budget in any given year. it would require cutting social security or medicare substantially. i think it is important for everybody to understand that all of us believe that we need to get to a point where eventually we can balance the budget. we don't need a constitutional amendment to do that. what we need to do is do our jobs, and we have to do it the same way a family would do it. if a family gets overextended and their credit card is too high, they do not just stop paying their bills. what they do is, they say, how we start cutting our monthly cost? we keep making our payments but we start cutting out the things that are not necessary, and we

do it in a way that maintains our credit rating, a way that is responsible. we do not stop sending our kids to college. we do not stop fixing the boiler or the roof that is leaking. we do things in a sensible, responsible way. we can do the same thing when it comes to the federal budget. >> if you end up going to this middle-of-the-road package you referred to as the second option, would that have to have some core of -- some sort of the stimulus -- >> i think both would be good for the economy. a payroll tax cut is something that has put $1,000 in the pocket of the typical american family over the of last six or seven months, and it has helped offset some of the rising costs in gasoline and food. i think that american consumers and american businesses would benefit from a continuation of

that tax cut next year. unemployment insurance, obviously unemployment is still too high. there are a lot of folks out there who are doing everything they can to find a job, but the market is still tight out there. for us to make sure they are able to stay in their homes potentially or able to still support their families i think is very important and contributes to the overall economy. there are ways that you can essentially take a little over one trillion dollars in serious discretionary funds, meaningful discretionary cuts, and then start building on top of that some cuts in non health care mandatory payments, ethanol programs, how we calculate various subsidies to various industries. that could potentially be added on, and we could still do something like a tax cut for

ordinary families that would end up benefiting the economy as a whole. that is not my preferable option. i think about this like a layer cake. you can do the bare minimum, and then you can make some progressively harder decisions to solve the problem more and more. we are in a position now where if we are serious about this, everybody is willing to compromise, as i said before, we can fix this thing probably for a decade or more, and that is something i think would be good for overall business climate and would encourage the american people that washington is willing to take care of its business. >> you are saying there are measures that would be good for the economy that need to be included for you to sign? >> i have to look at the overall package.

i do not know what the speaker or mr. mcconnell are willing to do at this point. >> this has gotten kind of ugly in the last week, and it appears that things even got a fiddle at these meetings. it regrets in your rolle -- it appears that things got few at these meetings. any regrets in your role in this? >> this notion that things got ugly is just not true. we have been meeting every single day, and we have had very constructive conversations. the american people are not interested in the reality tv aspects of who said what, and did somebody's feelings get hurt. they are interested in solving the budget problem and the deficit and debt. that may be good for chatter in this town, but it is not

something that folks out in the country are obsessing about. with respect to bowles-simpson, it would not have happened had i not set up the structure for it. as you recall, this was originally bipartisan legislation that some of the republican supporters of decided to vote against it when i said i supported it. that seems to be a pattern i am still puzzled by. so we set -- set it up, and they issued a report. this provides an important framework to begin discussions, but there were aspects of bit that -- of it is it that i said early on were not the approach would take. i will give you an example. on defense spending, a huge amount of savings on the discretionary side came from defense spending. as commander-in-chief, active

make sure we are cutting ticket -- we are cutting it in a way that recognizes we are still in the middle of a war. we are winding down another war, and we have a lot of veterans we have to care for as they come home. what we have said is, a lot of the components of rolle simpson -- bowles-simpson, a lot of the recommendations we have taken. others, like on offense, we have taken some but not of the recommendations. -- some but not all of the recommendations. the bottom line is, this is not an issue of salesmanship to the american people. the american people are sold. [unintelligible] >> you have 80% of the american

people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the american people support an approach that includes revenues and cut its. the notion that somehow the american people are not sold is not the problem. the problem is, members of congress are divided ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves then with previous statements. this is not a matter of the american people knowing what the right thing to do is. this is a matter congress doing the right thing and reflecting the will of the american people. if we do that, we will have solved this problem. >> i wanted to ask about the two trains that seem to be rolling down the track down the hill. later mcconnell has laid out an elaborate plan to raise the debt limit. he says it will be paired with

the new committee that would be tasked with coming up with the big solution you talked about by the end of the year. your comment on that proposal. meanwhile in the house, you are saying we can be flexible in our demands of we could get a balanced amendment. is there any way that could be part of a solution? part of a solution? bba means aall, balanced budget amendment. i think i already addressed this question earlier. we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. the constitution already tells us to do our jobs and make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices. this notion that we are going to go over a multi-year process instead of seizing the moment now and taking care problems is

a typical washington response. we don't need more studies. we don't need a balanced budget amendment. we simply need to make these tough choices and be willing to take on our faces. everybody knows it. we could have a discussion right now about what the numbers look like, and we know what is necessary. here is the good news. it turns out we don't have to do anything radical to solve this problem. contrary to what some folks say, we are not greece or portugal. turns out that our problem is we have cut taxes without paying for them over the last decade. we ended up instituting new programs like a prescription drug program for seniors that was not paid for. we fought two wars and did not pay for them. we had a bad recession that

required a recovery act and stimulus spending and helping states and all backs -- all that accumulated, and there is interest on top of that. to underline that, what is required is that the deed to unwind -- we have to clean up our tax code so we are not giving out a bunch of tax breaks to companies that do not need them and are not creating jobs. them and are not creating jobs. we cut programs that we don't need and we invest in those things that are going to help us grow. every commission that has been out there has said the same thing. basically taken the same approach within the margin of error. my general view is that if the american people looked at this,

they would say some of these decisions are tough, but they do not require us to cut medicare or social security. they do not require us to stop helping young people go to college. they do not require us to stop helping families who have a disabled child. they did not require us to violate obligations to our veterans, and they don't require job killing tax cuts. they require us to make some modest adjustments to get our house in order, and we should do it now. with respect to senator mcconnell's plan, it is constructive to say that if washington operates as usual and cannot get anything done, let's at least avert armageddon. i am glad that people are serious about the consequences

of defaults, but we have two problems here. one is raising the debt ceiling. this is a problem that was manufactured here in washington, because every single one of the leaders over there voted for raising the debt ceiling in the past and it has typically been a difficult but routine process. we do have a genuine underlying problem that our debt and deficits are too big. senator mcconnell's approach solves the first problem. it does not solve the second problem. i would like to solve that second problem. >> are you looking at this option as one likely outcome at this point for can you share with us why there is some hope that the talks that have been going on might actually produce

them? >> i always have hope. don't you remember my campaign? [laughter] even after being here to 0.5 years, i continue to have hope, because of the american people -- even after being here 2.5 years. there is still good, common sense. all we have to do is a line with that common-sense on this problem and it can get soft. i am assuming that at some point, members of congress are going to listen -- it can get solved. a number of republican former elected officials would say a balanced approach that includes some revenue is the right thing to do. the majority of republican voters say that approach is the right thing to do. the proposal that i was discussing with speaker boehner

fell squarely in line with what most republican voters think we should do. so the question is, at what point do folks over there start listening to the people who put them in office? now is a good time. sam young. >> good morning, mr. president. i would like to go back to the first question about the tone of this campaign. while it has not been ugly, it is not what you had in mind when you say you wanted to change the tone in washington. going forward, if you get a deal on this, can you get anything done it with congress over the next year and a half? >> let me say this. i am not trying to poke at you guys. i generally do not watch what is

said about me on cable. a generally did not read what is said about me even on the hill. part of this job is having a thick skin and understanding a lot of this stuff is not personal. that is not going to be an impediment to whatever at center mcconnell says about me on the floor of the senate, it will not be an impediment to us getting a deal done. the question is going to be whether at any given moment we are able -- willing to set politics aside, at least briefly, in order to get something done. i don't expect politicians not to think about politics, but every so often, there are issues that our urgent that have to be attended to and require us to do things we don't like to do. it gets some constituents that helped us get elected agitated,

because they are looking at it from a narrow prism. we are supposed to step back and look at what is good for the country. if we are able to remind ourselves of that, then there is no reason why we should not be able to get things done. what we have been assessing over the last couple of weeks about -- obsessing about raising the debt ceiling and reducing the debt and deficit. the american people are obsessed that unemployment is still way too high, and too many folks homes are still under water, and prices of things that they need, not just that they want, are going up a lot faster than their paychecks are, if they have a job. even after resolve this problem, we still have a lot of work to do. hans was mentioning we should

renew the payroll tax for another year, make sure employment insurance is there for another year. you are making the point about whether or not that issue could be wrapped into this deal. my point is that those are another set of issues that we need to be talking about and working on. i have an infrastructure bank bill that would supplement construction workers back to work building roads and bridges. we should be cooperating on that. most of the things i have proposed to spur on additional job growth are traditionally bipartisan. i have a free-trade deals sitting ready to go -- 3 trade deals ready to go, all deals that the republicans tell me were their top priorities. they said this would be one of the best job creators that we could have. yet it is still being held up because some folks don't want to

provide trade adjustment assistance to people who may be displaced as a consequence of trade. surely we can come up with a compromise to solve those problems. there wi